Slipper case a 'political attack': judge

Date: December 12 2012

A Federal Court judge has dismissed a sexual harassment claim against former speaker Peter Slipper, describing it as a "political attack" aimed at advancing the interests of the Liberal National Party (LNP).

In a scathing judgment handed down in Sydney on Wednesday, Justice Steven Rares said he had reached the "firm conclusion" that former staffer James Ashby's main purpose for bringing the proceedings was to "pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper".

Mr Ashby began planning the attack at least by the beginning of February this year, the judge found.

"The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the predominant purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper," Justice Rares said.

He found Mr Ashby had worked with fellow staffer Karen Doane and former federal minister Mal Brough to "advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough".

Mr Brough has been preselected as the Liberal National Party's candidate for the now independent Mr Slipper's Queensland seat of Fisher at the next federal election.

"As Mr Ashby and Ms Doane agreed in their texts of 30 March 2012, what they were doing `will tip the govt to Mal's (Brough's) and the LNP's advantage'," Justice Rares said.

"Mr Ashby and Ms Doane set out to use the proceedings as part of their means to enhance or promote their prospects of advancement or preferment by the LNP, including by using Mr Brough to assist them in doing so."

Mr Brough told AAP he was gobsmacked by the finding but that he wanted to read the judgment before making further comment.

Mr Ashby had claimed Mr Slipper had sexually harassed him verbally, in text messages and on one occasion by stroking his arm in his office.

During the proceedings, 270 pages of text messages taken from Mr Ashby's phone were filed in court.

Justice Rares was particularly critical of Mr Ashby's actions in claiming Mr Slipper had a sexual relationship with a male staffer in 2003.

"The 2003 allegations dealt with what was apparently consensual behaviour and included details that were intended to demean Mr Slipper for no legitimate forensic reason," Justice Rares said.

"(There was) no sworn or affirmed evidence from anyone who could establish in 2003 Mr Slipper had sexually harassed his staff member.

"The 2003 allegations were irrelevant and scandalous."

He also found Mr Ashby and his solicitor, Michael Harmer, had included allegations that Mr Slipper misused cab vouchers, "for the purpose of injuring Mr Slipper and for no legitimate forensic purpose".

Mr Ashby's originating application, filed in April, claimed Mr Slipper had misused cab vouchers, but he later abandoned those allegations.

"A party cannot be allowed to misuse the court's process by including scandalous and damaging allegations, knowing that they would receive very significant media coverage, and then seek to regularise his or her pleadings by subsequently abandoning those claims," Justice Rares said.

Allowing the proceedings to continue "would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper", he concluded.

He ordered Mr Ashby to pay costs.

Speaking outside court, Mr Ashby said he was "extremely disappointed" at the decision and would be appealing.

Mr Ashby said no evidence had been heard in his substantive claim against Mr Slipper since he filed the claim eight months ago.

"There has been a determined campaign to try and prevent the substantive allegations being heard and judged in open court and to put me to the maximum cost in pursuing justice," he told reporters.

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.